by Brian de Lore
Published 26th July 2026
Two highly detailed documents compiled by the TAB New Zealand Racing Advisory Committee are the most significant and damning narratives produced for New Zealand racing since the Messara Review reached the Minister’s hands exactly eight years ago (27th July 2018).
Supported by extensive research and industry analysis, they conclude that the current operating model for racing is no longer fit for purpose and that meaningful structural reform is essential if the thoroughbred and harness codes are to achieve a financially sustainable future.
The smaller 15-page paper entitled ‘New Zealand Racing: The Financial Position’ outlines the acceleration of costs of NZTR (45%) and HRNZ (38%) since 2023 and provides irrefutable evidence of the looming financial crisis. The second, a comprehensive 54-page paper entitled “New Zealand Racing Industry Reform – A Strategic Imperative for a Sustainable Future” provides details of five expanded recommendations for a sensible fix for both horse racing codes.
The documents are the findings of the TAB Advisory Committee (AC), formed around 15 months ago to identify the problems and propose a fix. Last December, they submitted their financial forecasts and recommendation for restructuring to the two codes, but received a dismissive response.
The financials audited by KPMG
When they resubmitted to the codes in March this year after all boxes were ticked following a full audit by KPMG, NZTR intimated they could not trust the same auditors that acted for TAB NZ and scrutiny by their own auditors would be required.
In essence, this is what the TAB AC is saying: “The industry’s governance structures are driving operational inefficiency, a lack of accountability, and money invested at the administrative level instead of focused investment to grow industry outcomes.
“If the system stays as it is, the compounding loops (the “negative flywheel”) of fewer horses, weaker product, a bloated cost base and unreliable venues will see the industry slip back toward its pre-2023 decline. Any efforts to work around these issues have been tried for decades and have not changed the trajectory.
“Consolidating governance, unlocking assets, stabilising supply, and lifting efficiency are now essential. Incremental steps will not hold the line; a coordinated reset is required now to avoid a material fall in funding, participation and export strength after the 2027/28 season when the industry’s guaranteed funding period comes to an end.”
The AC’s referencing the ‘pre-2023 decline’ is a pointed reminder about racing arriving at the brink of bankruptcy in the days before Entain arrived with its saving millions.
Poor administration the main problem
What the AC Financial Position report is saying is that its administration, and not stakes money, is what’s consuming a growing percentage of the funding. Using the industry’s own forecasts, it reveals the NZTR, HRNZ, TAB, and RIB operating costs are forecast at $91 million in FY26, representing 58% of stakes returned to participants.
It also compares NZ costs against Australia and claims we unnecessarily cost $23 million more in administration expenses compared to our contemporaries across the ditch.
TAB NZ is guaranteeing funding to the codes will only be held flat and not increased through to 2029. The two remaining codes after August 1st will get $159 million between them for the coming season, but also want from the TAB the $26 million that would have gone to fund the Greyhound code for the coming season – why are the administrative costs increasing in a shrinking industry!
The AC also says that if we keep the status quo, stakes by 2035 will be the same as today, but we will have used up $130 million of reserves and have no capacity to invest in infrastructure. One alternative would be to cut stakes from $157 million to $128 million for 2027 (19% cut) to keep reserves at the current level and be back to $159 million for stakes by 2035.
The third option is to immediately accept the changes proposed by the AC by rationalising costs to maintain stakes at the current level for 2027, which would allow stakes to grow to $182 million by 2035 while retaining reserves of $62 million. These figures have been audited by KPMG.
This is not really an argument about money though; it’s a mandate against the entire regime known as NZTR (and HRNZ), both at board and executive level – addressing the crucial issues of governance, accountability, administration and structural reform.
NZTR has been a steadily growing malignant tumour for well over a decade, and it now requires an exorcism using the full force of the stakeholders, because it will not recognise its own shortcomings and budge of its own accord. A combination of ostrich-like behaviour, ignorance, and self-interest has emerged after NZTR received the detailed work tabled by the AC.
The AC was formed to make recommendations and has no official power, but the irony is that they were selected from a mix of highly successful businessmen, all of whom have significant investments in racing, either full-time or part-time. They are the people who know what works.
The people at NZTR are mainly, but not all, non-racing people who have arrived via the Institute of Directors, the casino business or other industries not related to racing. They are simply the wrong people to take charge of an industry for which they have no passion or long-term future commitment. They are there for either employment or a well-paid directorship.
Chair of the NZTR board, Russell Warwick, resigned his position as Chair two weeks ago at the request of the Members’ Council, but he remains on the board until November and is likely to be replaced by a person named Humphries. It doesn’t improve, only gets worse, and the board is defiant.
The NZTR board possesses all the quintessential attributes for failure around the board table. It starts with insufficient experience or understanding of the industry, continues with a lack of knowledge needed to understand the complex issues of racing, which leads to a lack of engagement with the participants, and this board has clearly demonstrated its failure to adequately identify and assess risks, or take appropriate action to secure the industry’s financial sustainability.
Even by NZTR and HRNZ’s own forecasts, their combined deficits to the year 2030 total $112 million, and that’s with a zero increase in stakes over four years.
For thoroughbred racing, it’s now up to the racing clubs of New Zealand to call a Special General Meeting and move a vote of no confidence in the board of NZTR.
The NZTR Constitution says, “at least five (5) Voting Members representing at least 10% of the total voting rights can request an SGM in writing. The request must clearly state the business to be considered, with enough detail for Members to understand the purpose.
“Notice of an SGM must be given to all Members at least 20 Working Days before the meeting.”
Vote of no confidence an option for racing clubs
Failure of the clubs to take this action will see a continuance of the status quo, and according to the AC financial forecasts, backed by the audit of KPMG, racing is heading down the highway of hell. Will the clubs have the nous to do it? It’s doubtful they possess enough testosterone.
After carefully reading all the arguments provided by the AC over 69 pages in both documents, the narrative was so familiar; it led me to go back over more than 150 posts logged on this forum over the past decade.
Several of the blogs, dating back a long way, had these headlines: “Governance of NZ Racing still in the 20th Century” – “Transparency and accountability badly needed” – “Much more required than a performance and Efficiency Report” – “Racing stakeholders fed up with deception and misinformation.” There are dozens of them – all archived here on this website as a researched opinion by yours truly.
For almost a decade, The Optimist has argued that the greatest threat facing New Zealand thoroughbred racing has not been its horses, breeders, trainers or owners. It has been the way the industry has been governed.
Over that period, The Optimist has continually examined governance, administration, leadership, accountability and strategic direction. The recurring theme has remained remarkably consistent: New Zealand racing did not need another short-term fix. It has needed structural reform for many years.
Many disagreed. Others dismissed the concerns as being overly critical. Still others told me The Optimist’s negativity was damaging, but the truth is the damage was continually recurring at an administrative level, and these pages merely reported it.
Now an independent Racing Advisory Committee with validated authority has completed a detailed review of the industry’s financial position and governance. Its conclusions are striking, and not because they are new, but because long-term readers of this forum will be familiar with the narrative. The argument has been repeated on these pages since 2017; finally, people with clout have agreed in writing.
| The evidence has caught up | |
| The Optimist (2017-2026) | TAB Advisory Committee (2026) |
| Governance outdated | Governance driving inefficiency |
| Administration too large | Administrative expenditure too high |
| Accountability lacking | Lack of accountability |
| Structural reform needed | Structural change required |
| Incremental change won’t work | Incremental steps won’t hold the line |
| Industry needs reset | Coordinated reset required |
Have your say below.
Well, this is a sobering read on which to go to bed on.
Thank you Mr de Lore
I suppose not totally unexpected, but at 78 and in the Thoroughbred game as an Owner since 1992 and Harness even earlier since 1986, I have heard it all before.
About every couple of years, we have a report similar to this.
Gloom and despair continue.
I thought Entain was the savior of the codes, that was what we were told, but within a couple of years
perhaps they will be gone so what then?
Someone needs to save Racing.!
But who?
NZTR is so bloody top heavy and ignorant, know one is accountable, I had to speak to 4 different people at NZTR to get my trainers licence recently, everything used to be so simple to get done, not these days, more staff, less efficiency!
To
Many snouts in the trough General greed by totally incompetent people who would be unemployable in the real world
The thing that concerns me is that we all know that profits depend on increasing revenue and containing or reducing cost
let look at the revenue
This is primarily dependent on punting and punting on course, or on line depends on an attractive product
What is an makes an product
1 firstly punters want reliable information and track conditions well described and with limited up or down grsades and meeting abandonmentd
2 they need attractive and big fields to provide a range of odds
3 they want good jockeys that they can rely on
4,they want punting to be an acceptable pastime
Once we have the product then we need to look to the market. The discussion has been focussed on stopping the leaking of the NZ punters money to others. This is ass about face . We should be promoting Nz racing world wide and taking bets off other providers
Of course, going worldwide requires the top conditions to be met
Ellerslie has gone a small way to achieving track consistency . I think we are still short of good jockeys and really a long way from encouraging punters
In the many company hospitality tents I have been to I have not seen anyone helping those new to racing out on bets x . Yes hospitality is making money but a real opportunity is missed . Someone should be showing how to put an so on their phone and how to useit. There is a captive audience .
The real problem I see with horse numbers is the major wastage . With two year old races being the bid push many horses are lost to racing by pushing them early, we need to counter this by promoting high esrning races as 4 and 5 year old
Of coursec better stakes should prevent sale if horses elsewhere but those sales keep both trainers and breeders in business
As to costs
First priority has to be track maintenance the second priority has to be trackside presentation. Here the additional use of celebrities involve in the pervert of raving would help lift the profile
The next cost has to be ownership amenities and celebration of winning
The northern clubs bring owners together before racing . This should all
Be done after the race so the eiinrtd can shine in front of their peers and the losers can see and share some of the joy the winners have
Prior to the race owners are also concerned about betting etc
Videos interviews of winners with all the other race participants would also lift the profile of racing
Then on to my next big bug bear. No one is promoting racing to those not familiar with it. Racing is surviving on historic relationships and primarily those racing horse have breeding or provincial : rural history
Wellington propllr as I see it see racing in a bad light and Auckland with its third of the population racing only gently scratches the surface
Determine a target and actively promote rsciing
Breeders spend their money on sales promotion to an ever dying group, what is needed is a broader reach into marketing racing ti the wider community . But please only when you’ve got your house in order.
One thing that need correcting immediately is that all stakes earned by a horse should be paid directly to the racehorse owners be they 2 percent or 100%. This would give an inflow of cash after a win rather than everyone seeing a continuous out flow.
It would also make the managing syndicated easier for individuals and trainers
I’m sure thrrr are many things I’ve omitted
But finally any organisation is as good as its management and here we seem to be failing. There is no reason why ba rscing shouldn’t be the best in the world . We should have this aspiration.
So set targeted objectives makes and make the organisation staffed to cover these objective with a costed budget and for sector/ objective make one person accountable and review their performance against this budget
Give people specific jobs and hold them to account
You would be surprised how successful this approach is
Written in haste so excuse the typos but I am sure you get the gist
That was long winded Tim.
Let me give you the short answer .Admin costs ridiculously high,racing horses costs are high ,industry stakeholders prize money is low.What does this mean? The customer (the owner ) has left the building.
Great insight as usual Brian, send every club a snail mail copy to be presented at the next monthly meeting.
I will have to have to look at the two reports that you have made mention of. No doubt they included the financial implications that the 15 online casino licenses will have on the racing and sports gambling dollar but there is another huge problem coming soon. If it’s not mentioned I will find the details and post the information here tomorrow.
I read the latest financial report from the NZ TAB – the following excerpt is rather bizarre:
The strategic partnering agreement provides for a new opportunities payment of up to $90m.
The new opportunities payment represents certain legislative opportunities relating to the
wagering and broadcasting business that Entain NZ wishes to pursue which were not yet
enacted at the commencement of the strategic partnering agreement. As at 31 July 2025, no
opportunities have been identified by TAB NZ and Entain NZ. As such, the new opportunities
payment will be recognised on agreement of the opportunity by TAB NZ and Entain NZ and
over the period remaining in the strategic partnering agreement. At 31 July 2025 this variable
consideration is constrained and will not be recognised until the uncertainty is resolved.
I gather that it relates to GIOP blocking – $100m was guaranteed if it was legislated so why the $10 million cut? GIO blocking came in effect on 28th June 2025 so why did the NZ say at 31 July the matter was still un-resolved?
Simple. So simple that wallies on huge salaries can’t work it out.
Dates, programming, and appropriate stakes allocation.
More later.
Incompetent people in challenging positions employ more incompetent people to protect them from their own lack of knowledge and eliminate the threat of a challenge to their exorbitant over paid positions.
For years now the focus on the racing industry has been to make the top tier fatter and wealthier while the providers of the product that the industry survives on starves.
We all know what a triangle is ? In racing it’s up the wrong way,they have the fat part at the top ,it’s supposed to be at the bottom..
Casino bosses,professional directors and incompetent people will be shown to be a disaster for the future of NZ racing.
ive been criticizing the admin for years. all I get is the rib slapping me with trumped up charges! at least hrnz board fired our ceo! Who alex park then promptly employed. go figure!
Paul, the RIB now costs $19 million a year to run. With that excessive budget, surely they have better things to do than harass a good racing man like you. Don’t they know you are the son of snooker royalty – former NZ Champion Snooker player Tom Yesberg – idolised by all who knew the game in a past life?
I have been reading pessimistic papers on the future of racing for 50 years so you never expect optimism in case it endangers another tax cut or sale of assets that have got us through the last decade.
But the management aspect is a genuine concern. I had to check recently that the Racing Industry Board still exists. Once a dominant player it seems an incidental one rubber stamping gaming and administrative changes rather than what was once the other way around. And the clumsy election system to NZTR board seems more complicated than US Presidential elections and perhaps hides the influence of some concerned.
Winston Peters was to be the force for change but his changes have been problematic from a practical viewpoint and he has seemed beholden to sections of the industry whose self -interest is fairly evident and understandable. To ban greyhounds here while running Australian dog racing is execrable logic and ethically irresponible. But even he seems to have ruled out more the more tax relief these reports seek to encourage.
I do not go along with the critics of centralising administration of racing if only because there are no longer the unpaid volunteers to keep many clubs operating. The world changed with computers and we had to follow.
But one thing we lost with the corporate movement was the accountability.
Once you had to adjust your stakes and costs to keep your club viable. Now we see clubs running five horse fields for substantial stakes they could not have considered in that era. Certainly a lot has changed but betting turnover and bottom line income is still the key. The Entain stakes boom has been great for owners,trainers and jockeys but if you really look at how it has advanced the quality of racing its a different story. For example instead of its claim that it would slow the export of our horses to Australia it seems to have accelerated it along with some of our leading owners. Local crowd support at city venues,though well disguised at some tracks,is a major concern.We seem to have lost the public somewhere along the line.
Now as the reality of the possible end of the Entain bonuses looms panic sets in. Most industries plan for the future. We seem to lurch from one crisis to another.We talk of change but in fact resist it. That is the real problem
RIB has a budget of $22million I believe ( I am sure if I am wrong someone will correct me), that is absurd and I would say a lot of it is spent on flights and accommodation which in the main is un-necessary spend, use the stewards who are located closest to the track , don’t fly them in from all over the place.
Top heavy salaries, exorbitant numbers of staff and a complete breakdown of Admin skills has sky rocketed overall costs at NZTR. Its like the public service of Jacinda Ardern days except on steroids
Scary scenarios await unless action is taken immediately.
Brian..is it possible to provide links to the two reports? I have only seen a 25 page version of the main report and can’t find the 15 page financial review.
Brian……we have discussed this enough over the years, tried valiantly to create change, but alas the same problems exist.
With respect to the previous chairs of NZTR, but each of them were ill equipped to fill that role. It starts at the top, get the right Chair with the skill set to change cultures, possessing industry enthusiasm and experience and make the changes needed. We have experienced Ministers Of Racing who were pathetic. They didn’t have any interest and the existing has, but he is running on empty.
Regarding The Members Council of NZTR, it shouldn’t exist. The Board should have 5 Regional Racing Club Directors, one each for Breeders and Owners and one from NZVets Association. But a hard nosed experienced Chair who knows the industry back to front, and lead the industry forward. It’s not too late at all.
But first, the incumbents need to be seen off. How is that going to be accomplished?
Will clubs stand up and call for a SGM?
Horse racing is a very simple business …. Put x amount of equal type an ability horses together an entice people to bet on the result with stake attributed to them that is in fact generated a calculated as a portion of the profit from the gambling ……. Nztr an hrnz seem to not understand this very simple business ——- and over spend everyday an every race making it impossible to make money a therefore need constant bailing out …… horse racing is not Driven by stake money !!! It will be bankrupted by it